Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
U>They hire based on competence.
Are you sure that’s the only reason? The gender bias regarding hiring has been well known
>[Gender bias in interview invitations ](https://www.wgea.gov.au/publications/gender-equitable-recruitment-and-promotion)
>Multiple studies have demonstrated that when women apply for jobs, they receive fewer interview invitations than equally qualified men – an effect that is compounded for older women, women with children and women from certain ethnic or racial groups (Abrams et al., 2016; Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004; Correll et al., 2007; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Neumark, 2010; Riach and Rich, 2006; Weichselbaumer, 2016). Research from Australia and the United Kingdom has shown that men are similarly disadvantaged when applying for entry-level roles (Riach and Rich, 2006) or jobs in heavily female-dominated occupations (Booth and Leigh, 2010).
>In each of these studies, researchers sent out matched pairs of applications, which differed only in candidates’ identifying information, to thousands of actual job advertisements and monitored interview invitation rates. Because this approach effectively controls for other factors, such as work history or education, it is widely seen to be the most reliable indicator of gender-based employment discrimination in the initial recruitment stage (Neumark, 2010). If all else is equal, and men receive more interview invitations than identically-qualified women, logic dictates that managers must be using gender to assess candidates’ employability (Foley and Williamson, 2018).
>Research has shown how women face tougher evaluation of their credentials during the initial recruitment stage. A Yale University study asked 127 science faculty at research-intensive universities to rate the job application materials of a prospective laboratory manager who was randomly assigned either a female or male name (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). Both male and female evaluators rated the male candidate as more competent and ‘hireable’ than the female candidate, even though both applications were otherwise identical. Evaluators also recommended higher starting salaries for the male applicant and offered more mentoring opportunities.
>In another study, 238 academic psychologists in the United States were randomly assigned to evaluate one of two identical resumes (either ‘Karen Miller’ or ‘Brian Miller’) for a candidate applying for an academic role (Steinpreis et al., 1999). Although participants said they liked the female candidate better than the male candidate, they were more likely to recommend the male candidate for the job. Interestingly, participants were four times more likely to write cautionary remarks in the margins of the female candidate’s application, questioning the independence and legitimacy of her accomplishments, such as: ‘I would need to see evidence that she had gotten these grants and publications on her own’.
>These findings suggest that women face more rigorous scrutiny and are held to higher standards than equally qualified men and that, consciously or unconsciously, managers associate candidates’ genders with their likelihood of job-related success (for a comprehensive and accessible account of gender differences in job evaluations, see Bohnet, 2016; Fine, 2011). Gender bias in interview invitations
Multiple studies have demonstrated that when women apply for jobs, they receive fewer interview invitations than equally qualified men – an effect that is compounded for older women, women with children and women from certain ethnic or racial groups (Abrams et al., 2016; Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004; Correll et al., 2007; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Neumark, 2010; Riach and Rich, 2006; Weichselbaumer, 2016). Research from Australia and the United Kingdom has shown that men are similarly disadvantaged when applying for entry-level roles (Riach and Rich, 2006) or jobs in heavily female-dominated occupations (Booth and Leigh, 2010).
>In each of these studies, researchers sent out matched pairs of applications, which differed only in candidates’ identifying information, to thousands of actual job advertisements and monitored interview invitation rates. Because this approach effectively controls for other factors, such as work history or education, it is widely seen to be the most reliable indicator of gender-based employment discrimination in the initial recruitment stage (Neumark, 2010). If all else is equal, and men receive more interview invitations than identically-qualified women, logic dictates that managers must be using gender to assess candidates’ employability (Foley and Williamson, 2018).
>
I can only imagine it is much worse in India.
You also haven’t explained why women are paid less than men for the same job.
UAre you literate? That’s not the only reason. Here, I will spoonfeed this to you:>Fewer women in top management is *just one* reason why the gender pay gap remains wide open. **Another reason is unconscious biases**. Often women are not considered valuable enough in the workforce. This translates into lack of opportunities to go up and not being duly considered during performance evaluations. Eventually, it even affects the way women ask for salaries and raises.
Here are some other points that you missed:
>The gender pay gap — a woman being paid less than a man even when both are performing the same role in a company — may sound like an exception. But it’s so prevalent that it’s rather a norm across the world. Women on average are paid about 20 per cent less than men globally, an International Labour Organization (ILO) study estimated in 2018. **The ILO’s average gap for India is a far wider 34%.**
Women employees in India earn less than their male counterparts on every step up in their career as reflected by a widening of gender pay gap as women rise up the organisation hierarchy. That’s what an IIM-Ahmedabad study revealed last year. **While women at individual contributor level earn only 2.2% less than men working in similar roles, the gap widens to 3.1% for managers/supervisors and 4.9-6.1% for directors and senior executives, the study showed**. The study was based on responses from 109 NSE companies with a sample size of over 4,000 senior executives.
>
The gender pay gap can vary widely across sectors and companies. But on average, the study estimated, **senior women professionals in India earn only Rs 85 for Rs 100 that men in the same position earn.**>They hire based on competence.
This dosen’t explain why women earn less than men for the same job.
ULaws are not perfect too.>Maybe what you’re saying is that our government is inefficient at enforcing laws, which I agree with.
That is correct.
>Gender pay gap has already been disproved. Why would companies chose to pay higher salaries to men if women did the same work with same efficiency on lower salaries? It’s about profits after all.
Because of misogyny duh. Did you even read the link?
Don’t tell me you are the type to deny discrimination and misogyny exists.UThe Indian legal system should definitely be improved to protect men’s due process and prevent false convictions.The Indian society should also be looking at ways to reduce the rape culture prevalent in the society and the underreporting of sexual assault and the frequent lack of justice for women in actual rape cases.
UNote that rights dosen’t necessarily mean legal rights.Anyway you could for example start with the [gender pay gap](https://m.economictimes.com/jobs/hr-policies-trends/why-is-a-womans-salary-less-than-a-mans-a-gaze-down-the-gap/articleshow/99182414.cms)
And then if you want a [more detailed look at things](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_India)
